Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-03
The state Debt and Jshn Randolph
of Roanoke.

with your kind permission, MIR. Editor,
| have word or two 10 say. First,
and briefly, If this legislation is Gun
prineipled," it is quees that as elevated
a gentleman as Mr.. Bryan claims to be
should avail himself of it. Second,
doubtless Mr.. Bryan, in pronouncing
the Legislation unconstitutional, takes
the Federal view which afiirms the
right OF the Supreme Court to revise
the acts Of State in dealing. with the
obligation OF contracts. In this he is
backed ky majority Of the bar who,
AS a rule, / am sorry to say, side with
precedent, crow in its most outrageous
acts, thereby strengthening one class,
rather than with principle, which sides
with liberty and the happiness OF all
classes.
Of this precedent, or authority, as it is
enormously called, of judicial decisions
MIR. Bryan has enough and to spare on
his side. But it has always been aques-
ton how far such decisions can engratt
upon the Constitution of the United
States powers not originally embraced,
nor intended to be embraced in that
instrument. In the matter in hand
there is abundant evidence in history
and contemporary exposition-Ban-
croft, vii, pages 36l-62, and Federdt-
list, lxxxi-thst this power over a State
was not embraced.
OF authority on the other side-i. G.,
the opinion of statesmen such as Madi-
son-there is likewise an abundance,
part of il from sources which MIR. Bryan
appears to be wholly Ignorant of; and
which, though he may indeed reject 1t,
may yet mitigate his scorn for the over.
whelming majority of all the people OF
Virginia, "whose blame is praise" as
he is pleased to declare in his letter.
Mr.. Bryan is great nephew, OF the
half blood, to John Randolph OF Roa-
noke. A friendship honorable to both
parties has existed between the fami-
lies for more than ninety years 1t has
not been very long since the venerable
father of Mr. Bryan piously moved the
great statesman's bones from the foot
Of that lonely pine, at Roanoke, which
had sung his requiem in every breeze
for fifty years, to the sacred protection
of Hollywood. One would naturally
suppose that it was from such sources
that Mr. Bryan would have learned
the examples of patriotism we have
been taught TO venerate."
Not SO. For in 1904 Mr.. John Ran
dolph and Mr.. Joseph Bryan OF Geor-
gia, the grandfather of Mr.. Joseph
fryan of Henrico, were doing oil in
their power to yindicate the "uncon-
stitutional and "unprincipled" con-
duct of the State OF Georgia in the
wear 1876; and the vote taken in the
| House Of Representatives, on the 10th
March, 1904, after an elaborate debate,
pretty accurately reported-Abridge-
mcnt Of the Debates Of Congress,
Vol. III. p. 157-shows, 81 to 81, in
their favor. What the State OF Geor-
ola had done and claimed the right to
| 90 is expressed in the following reso'
luton offered by Mr.. Randolph on the
20th February, 1904:
| Re,olred. That when the Govern
ors Of any people shall have betrayes tho con
| 0OpDCe reDOleQ IN LutfIl, anu ctldi hoNV OAVA
cised that authority with which they have beer
clothed for the general welfare 10 promot'
| their own private ends, under the oaSest mo
tiyes and TO the public detrinent, IL Is the IN
alieDable right OF apeople 80 clrcumstanced y
revoke the authority thus abused, TO resume
| the rights thus attempted 10 DO Dartored, ane
| TO abrogate the act thus endeayoring 10 betra!
them.
That Is In evidence 20 this House that the
act of the Legislature Of Georgia passed on th'
;th Of January, 1875, entitled AN act for ap
propriating part OF the INDICATED territory o
This State. for the payment OF the late staH
troops, and for other purposes was passe'
| nv persops under the influence OF gross an
ralpable corruption. practiced by the grantee
Of the lands attempted TO DO allenated by I'M
aforesaid act, tending to enrich ana aSgran
die TO degree almost incalculable, a low In
diyidusls, and ruinous TO the public Interest,"
The GOOD people OF Georgia, Impressed viii
general indignation at this at OF asroclols p9r
ddy and Unparalleled corruption, wish
promptitude q decision highly honorable
. their character, did, by act OF suDleqie1
Iegislsture. passed on the 18Th OF February
1896. under circumstances Of peculiar solemn
~ ard finally sanctioned 10y the people, wa
have subsequently engrafted IT on their Const
, tatiOn, declare the preceding act, ana IN
grants made under II, In themselves null an
} | void: that the said act should DO expunge
from the records OF the state, aud puDlici
burnt: which was accordingly done; proVlslo
M the same time being made for restoring IN
prefenOed purclaSe-InOn6y 10 lnb Bitltcba3 y
! nhom. or by persons claiming under them, IN
! greater part OF the said purcha5e-money ma
Geen Withdrawn from the Treasury OF Georges
, that q subsequent Legislature OF an in1
vidual state has an undoub,ed rignt 70 rePe'
any net Of a preceding Legislature, provide
such repeal be not forbidden by the Consutr
ton Of such State or Of the United States
That the aforesaid net Of the state Of Georgi'
uassed on the 18th of February. 1895, was 10
= hidden neither by the constitution OF Uni
| hut hat Of the IfnifQd STATED.
Y If Mr.. Bryan will refer to the debate
5 he will find that this case and the Rio
o dIebercer debt settlement involve tn
$ same principles, only the exciting caus
$ to legisla ion is stated in the Yazo
e caseOfor it is Of that l speak-and NJ
in the Riddleberger act repeating IL
/ funding acts of 1871 and 1879. 81
every man who chooses can ascertai
= that the first of those acts was passa
e by the bribery of enough men to col
: trol the question, and that the secon
q was passed by Misrepresentation IN
p posed as fact on certain gentlemen wi
= happened not to know much abo'
finance.
v As Mr.. Bryan may have the usu
i cnt-and-dried answer about the sacre
= uess of judicial decisions, wish to a
tjcipate that old story by the follOwir
extract from an article on the YazC
case by Professor Johnston, OF Il
e Princeton Law School, (Salor's Ency
# Vol. ILL.,, p. 1920:
G "Whether we take the standpoint OF Sta
sovereignty or national sovereignty Is Is clear
q either case that the State Legislatures In IL
were left by the win Of the people OF the Sta
v or Of the people Of the nation, the same 8
l., preme mower OF revocation or alteration
toeir public charters or public contracts Whi
has alvays be0n possessed by the British Ps
lament. He who asserts that they have sin
- lost that power may fairly be asked 70 put
l., | finger ON the place where the decree OF !
Siafe or Of the nation has taken IL from the
81 IL Is hard 10 side with John Randolph agar
. John Marshall, but il ia infinitely harder 70
u any such weeping decrOe In the contra;t pl
vis,on of the Constitution. We can Oh
geo series OF stepping-stones, Deglhnl
viii the Zazoo decision. and ending VIII
il general judicial decree that the state legs
10 fares have no power to revoke or alter charte
IS 20 that as the law stands, any corporation .
only o lie INSCRIPTIONS enough 70 ,purcha
e one leEislstue O, and 20 obtain from that DO
l IN itrepealnlle chGlter granting 10 any pr
- leccs, however enormous or however oppos
l. 10 tho self-goverpment OF the people OF
state, and IL obtains OF once a Vesiei ne
which must he sustained by the 1udlcial POW
ard physical force Of the United states.
In this aspect the case has far more ga
cnrouH appearance now than In lslO or 10
ewing to IA rise Of o class OF corporations wnt
N fcwerr. ambitions, and perilous riyalr
10 ccuid hardly have then been imagined.